J.C.Verma, J. - (1.) In the present Criminal Misc. Petition the only point involved is whether the petitioners Draupadi Devi alias Smt. Maya Sippi widow of late Vijay Sippi and Shri Vishal Jadeja Sb Prarrm, earlier husband of Smt. Draupadi Devi, cannot be held criminally liable for the alleged criminal action of Shri Vijay Sippi or the firm M/s. Sippi Films, when admittedly said two petitioners are neither partners of the firm M/s. Sippi Films, nor were falling under any of the necessary ingredients of Secs. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to the Act). but still on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Simil Mittal. Director of Mittal Capital India Ltd., the cognizance had been taken against the two petitioners as well for the dishonour of the cheque issued by late Vijay Sippi on behalf of M/s. Sippi Films in favour of the M/s. Mittal Capital India Ltd., for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs; the cheque number is 256154 dated 31-3-1997. At the time when the cheque was issued there were only two partners of M/s. Sippi Films namely Mr. Vijay Sippi and his mother Mrs. Mohini G. Sippi. 1. Mr. Vijay Sippi died on 17-4-1998.
(2.) The cheque in question was presented to Bankers after the death of said Mr. Vijay Sippi, that is, in August, 1998 to the Bank Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ajmer. The complainant was informed on 15-9-1998 that the cheque cannot be en cashed for the reason that money has not been arranged for. On 24-9-1998, the notice was sent to petitioners copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure-2. On 31-10-1998, the petitioners replied to the notice saying that they were neither the signatories to the cheque nor partners in the firm M/s. Sippi Films, and therefore, no liability could be foisted on the petitioners only because of the reason that the petitioner No. 1 happened to be a wife and the petitioner No.2; a step son of the signatory of the cheque.
(3.) The complaint was filed under Secs. 138 and 141 of the Act. The statement of complainant Mr. Sunil Mittal was also recorded. The cognizance was taken by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer vide order dated 11-11-1998. The petitioners moved an application for recalling of the cognizance order, which was dismissed vide order dated 2-4-1999. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge. Ajmer, which was also dismissed on 17-8-1999. Hence the present petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C. for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners has been preferred.;